Posted on 06/14/2019 10:08:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Semple scares me. What people can do
Satan decieves women and women temptes men, that has not changed
What that passage doesn't say is if such prayer or prophecy was in a church service. Using one verse to nullify another is Satan's job.
Praying in church is vastly different from leading the church as a pastor, or teaching the men of the church. Same with prophecy, which is fairly uncommon as spiritual gifts go. Ive heard a couple of women preachers, but never heard one who had anything really worth listening TO.
Well, *contemporary people* are wrong. As usual.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
She was a fraud, as were most of the initial charismatic pioneers.
“This was not a general statement, as the book itself shows.”
Satanic distortion.
“QUESTION: is 1 Corinthians 14:34-37 an absolute command for women to remain silent at ALL TIMES in ALL SERVICES?”
Sophistry. You plan an ambush based on some twisted definition of “services.”
It is, however, an absolute prohibition on women clergy.
Our country has done a great disservice to women over the years by not elevating and supporting women in roles of leadership.
RE: Sophistry. You plan an ambush based on some twisted definition of “services.”
Before you use the word “sophistry” be sure that the term applies to the question being asked.
I did not ask about women in clergy. I asked about women REMAINING SILENT AT ALL TIMES IN ALL SERVICES. And where did I define the word “service”?
If I did not define it, how did I twist it?
“If I did not define it, how did I twist it?”
The twisted definition is the one you will present if you can goad me into engaging.
That verse is as clear as anything in human existence. It literally, physically nauseates me to see people trying to explain it away. I don’t feel like letting you do that to me, so, bye.
RE: The twisted definition is the one you will present if you can goad me into engaging.
I call this judging before the presentation is even given. A truly honest person would at least read the explanation before making such a judgment.
How do I know that you are interested in misrepresenting me? Very simply — you have decided already that I am in favor of women clergy, WHICH I NEVER SAID. Please re-read my post before jumping into conclusions.
“I call this judging before the presentation is even given.”
It wasn’t hard to see where you were going. Seen it many times.
“A truly honest person would at least read the explanation before making such a judgment.’
A naive person would hang his jaw out for you to take a free shot. Honesty doesn’t require it.
“How do I know that you are interested in misrepresenting me? Very simply — you have decided already that I am in favor of women clergy, WHICH I NEVER SAID.”
I never said that you were in favor of women clergy. My remark on that was simply an aside, offered in a futile attempt to maintain clarity. Your basis for thinking that I was “interested in misrepresenting” you is, therefore, completely specious.
You tried to set up an ambush; I refused to walk into it. Now go away.
RE: It wasn’t hard to see where you were going. Seen it many times.
Just because you’ve seen it many times doe snot mean that you’ve seen it all the time. So, how do you know that this time is the same as the previous times?
RE: A naive person would hang his jaw out for you to take a free shot. Honesty doesn’t require it.
Why is it naive? A simple response to what I present would be honest. You refused to do that, preferring to judge what I have not even said.
RE: I never said that you were in favor of women clergy.
OK fine, we both agree that it is a prohibition on women’s clergy. However, the next issue has not been addressed, what about Women speaking in a worship service? Is this an absolute prohibition? *THAT* was the original question I had ( see post #10 above ).
RE: My remark on that was simply an aside, offered in a futile attempt to maintain clarity.
Why is trying to maintain clarity futile?
It is just that — AN ATTEMPT AT CLARITY.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.